Hi Notcharizard, welcome to your adoption subpage, feel free to post any questions you have in the question section below and I'll try my best to answer them or find someone who can. I'll go over your edits periodically (~1-2 days) and if I have any feedback I'll leave them in the feedback section below. Another option might be for it to be more like WP:CVA (but a bit worse and for other topics) if you are interested in that. Justiyaya 08:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Questions edit
Do you have any advice on handling situations in which a person is making problematic edits, but they are probably done in good faith and don't quite constitute vandalism enough to be reported in Administer Intervention Against Vandalism? Edits in Naporitan were tagged as having issues by recent changes, and there was just a lot of unsourced stuff being done. I reverted it, and mentioned it on the users talk page, but they kept adding and I was unsure how to proceed as I didn't want an edit war but also wasn't sure where to ask for admin help as like I said, it's not quite vandalism.
Here's the users talk page showing my attempts to explain there mistakes, do you also have any feedback on how I might do better in this in future? Thank you! -- NotCharizard 🗨 12:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Really depends on a case by case basis, generally if they are discussing the article and is in good faith on talk pages you should attempt to resolve the issue by explaining the relevant policies to them. Which I think you did quite effectively on their talk page. I think they now understand the issue with the edit and self reverted. If you think there were copyright issues to the page, consider requesting revision deletion with either Template:Copyvio-revdel (there's a script for this :D) or perhaps Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2022 April 18 depending on how obvious the issue is (never really dealt with copyvio with a source in a different language). Be very aware of the WP:3RR limit and its exceptions (don't think you went past it in this case but I see a lot of experienced editors making that mistake and I'm personally constantly aware of it when I'm doing recent changes stuff). Anyways good job dealing with this and happy editing :D Justiyaya 15:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
23 April edit
I have a question about a specific situation, so this one's long. A few days back, I noticed an IP had added incorrect information to Pokémon universe. Just a really minor thing that's very believable and would've completely slipped past recent changes patrol. I undid it (after Googling to be 100% sure - I couldn't even find any fake info claiming this so I suspected the person had entirely made it up). They kept changing it back, as well as some things on other pages that after checking I found were wrong - so I started suspect they were just trying to see what they could get away with. They were temporily blocked. A few days later, they did it again, and then after that with new IPs. So I ended up up putting in a request for the page to have some protection, and it was given it.
Now I've just seen that the edit's been put in and accepted again. That's fair, the admin would've assumed good faith. I've undone it now, but I suspect it's only a matter of time (tbh I've gotta admire their persistance somewhat) until it happens again. While writing this I had to idea to put one of those little notes up the top of the page that shows in the code but not on the actual page asking for that specific kind of edit to not be accepted, but now I am wondering if that will just inspire them to try something else instead and maybe it's a "better the devil you know" situation. Is there any reccomended way of dealing with this? -- NotCharizard 🗨 13:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Notcharizard: Looking at the article, I think I've seen a similar edit (about the same thing) while trying to clear the pending changes queue a few days ago but I think I decided to take no action because I was quite confused about it. I don't think the reviewers that accepted did anything wrong in terms of policy because the edits pass the general criteria. I've changed the location of the notices to make them really impossible to not notice and you might've added an unintentional line break up top (while adding the edit notice). Anyways if they try to change it again I would be very surprised if any reviewer accepts. Perhaps semi-protection might be useful in this case if they come back. Good job catching and fixing the issue and have a great day :D Justiyaya 13:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oh yes, I definitely was not blaming the reviewer, it's one of those very sneaky ones that I definitely wouldn't have thought anything of myself if I wasn't familiar with the franchise. Also I see how that placement is much better, thank you - and I undoubtedly did add an accidental linebreak as I have done that a few times - I keep forgetting that the wikitext isn't like html and actually pays attention to them. And thank you! -- NotCharizard 🗨 14:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
"Single purpose account" edit
While doing some anti-vandalism stuff, I've noticed an account that was adding information that an individual is Jewish to many articles, all related to The Beatles, and in many cases just adding it only to a "minor character" who is mentioned once in the article where there's no other information about that person given and it's not really relevent and seems out of place. It's not vandalism at all, just seems like unnecessary information. Maybe they're Jewish and just super proud of how many Jewish people helped The Beatles along, but I'm concerned there may be an underlying antisemetic purpose. I looked at their history and all of their edits are this same type. I've read the article on single purpose accounts and I feel this fits, but again, they've not done anything against policy as far as I can see. I've left a message on their talk page asking if there's a reason they've stuck to a specific edit and followed their talk page but I'm not sure I'm overthinking and should just forget it? -- NotCharizard 🗨 08:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm guessing that they've now gone (judging on how they haven't edited in a while) and will never return but I have no idea. Simply being a single purpose account isn't alone grounds for a ban (I think) but yeah other policies might apply like Wikipedia:NOTHERE or Sockpuppetry. In this case, try an IP to location tool if you want to know where the editor is from, might be useful to determine intent (there a script for that!) But yeah I think you dealt with it quite well and the IP in question might've been a bit confused about policies. Don't think you are overthinking it and happy editing! Also sorry about the late reply, sorta was busy irl. Justiyaya 12:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, I definitely wasn't thinking they needed to banned, but sometimes I get feelings of "I feel like this could be something" and I'm never quite sure if I need to keep an eye on someone or if I'm overthinking. I suppose knowing what patterns to pick up on is just something that will come more with experience though. And also that's fine! I have a bit of a messy sleeping cycle so there will defintely be times when you'll be busy or even asleep so do not worry about that! -- NotCharizard 🗨 13:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Notability edit
I got in some trouble today with someone after tagging some articles for speedy deletion because they did not seem to meet the criteria for notability, of biographical or general. I've read both criteria and I also like to read through all the questions at the Teahouse because it helps me learn a lot, and they talk about notability a lot there and often say to people that their idea for an article is not notable enough.
The articles were afydd ap Gruffydd (poet), Dafydd ap Harri Wyn, Dafydd Alaw, Dafydd Cadwaladr, Samuel Breeze, Thomas Bowen (Independent minister), Ivor Bowen, Hugh Bold, and Bleddyn Ddu.
They did not explain to me why the articles did not fit the criteria, other than saying the person was notable "by virtue of being in a biographical dictionary", but my understanding of the person notability guideline is not that that gives a person automatic notability, as it says "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.". The only thing I can think is that people from a long time ago have different notability levels? -- NotCharizard 🗨 04:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Admittedly I'm not very familiar with the A7 criteria, but I believe that most of the articles you tagged meets WP:ANYBIO per "an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary", and while it doesn't exclude them from being deleted per AFD (unlikely but possible), they should not be tagged for A7. I think Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance explains it quite well although the criteria is quite confusing. Pinging Sdrqaz because I think they can explain it much much better than me Justiyaya 04:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure whether I should be replying here or on your talk page, NotCharizard, but I'll go with here. The important thing to keep in mind with A7 is that "credible claim of significance" is a far lower bar than notability. It is very low because while a lack of notability dealt with by deleting it after a week (be it by PROD or AfD), a lack of significance can be dealt with by immediate deletion, without anyone else's input. While you're right that ANYBIO does not give someone automatic notability, the fact that a subject meets the guideline is a very credible claim to notability. Even if you do not believe the subject to be notable, they have already gone past the "significance" bar by a long way. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah you explained it much better than me, thank you so much Sdrqaz :D Justiyaya 14:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, I think I understand now, I misunderstood "lower bar" to mean the reverse of what it does mean - as in I understood "significance is an easier bar to reach than notability in deleting an article" rather than "significance is an easier bar to reach than notability for the subject of the article to meet" what a misunderstanding! Am I correct then that A7 would only apply to cases that are extremely obvious, like say an article a random person has written about themself kind of thing? Thank you a lot for your explanation! -- NotCharizard 🗨 21:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah you explained it much better than me, thank you so much Sdrqaz :D Justiyaya 14:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure whether I should be replying here or on your talk page, NotCharizard, but I'll go with here. The important thing to keep in mind with A7 is that "credible claim of significance" is a far lower bar than notability. It is very low because while a lack of notability dealt with by deleting it after a week (be it by PROD or AfD), a lack of significance can be dealt with by immediate deletion, without anyone else's input. While you're right that ANYBIO does not give someone automatic notability, the fact that a subject meets the guideline is a very credible claim to notability. Even if you do not believe the subject to be notable, they have already gone past the "significance" bar by a long way. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Feedback edit
To start things off, are you interested in the WP:Rollback userright? You're getting quite close in terms of recent pages patrolling experience to be granted it and I believe you meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback Justiyaya 08:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- That would be very helpful, it would definitely save time as an alternative to "restore this version" when undoing vandalism. Is it different to the rollback that Twinkle provides? I've read the page and it does have a specification that it's not for new users, although it only seems to measure this in terms of edit count - the fact that my account it only a month old (exactly as of today!) wouldn't be an issue? -- NotCharizard 🗨 10:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Personally the most convenient part part of it is using huggle which is the most risky (as in easiest to make blunders with) but effective tool at recent changes patrolling, simple rollback isn't really that useful due to the limited situations you can use it in. I've applied with around the same edit count as you with about the same amount of RCP experience. Think you'd be fine but if you are concerned about registration time perhaps waiting another month? Justiyaya 15:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Now I've had a read through the pages about Huggle I'm a lot more keen to apply! It looks super useful. On the application page I see a few people who've been denied and that makes a bit hesitant, but I've got to get better at not taking that sort of thing (criticism or being told no) as "getting in trouble" on here, so maybe it'll be good for me to put in an application now. -- NotCharizard 🗨 05:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Personally the most convenient part part of it is using huggle which is the most risky (as in easiest to make blunders with) but effective tool at recent changes patrolling, simple rollback isn't really that useful due to the limited situations you can use it in. I've applied with around the same edit count as you with about the same amount of RCP experience. Think you'd be fine but if you are concerned about registration time perhaps waiting another month? Justiyaya 15:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi Notcharizard, might be preferred if you left a slight edit summary explaining the reason of your reverts at times (to add on to the default undo summary). Simply leaving a link to WP:EL or other relevant policies might be useful for other editors viewing the edit history. Perhaps installing WP:RW or WP:UV would help with that (it's a userscript). Justiyaya 17:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Was talking about Special:Diff/1083741339 btw. Otherwise great job recent changes patrolling, keep it up! :D Justiyaya 17:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, how perfect! I've just read my AFR response (I'm about to head out, will reply later today) and was thinking "leaving edit summaries for all my reverts is going to make things quite a bit slower" but this will be very helpful! I've just downloaded the script and had a little try of it and it's very nice, Wikipedian developers continue to amaze me, what a bunch of legends. -- NotCharizard 🗨 01:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Notcharizard Mhm, they're amazing :D, another response on PFPerm if you haven't noticed Justiyaya 01:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Rollback edit
@Notcharizard: Congratulations on the new userright! I see you are already beginning to use Huggle and looked through all your reverts with it. So far they all seem like good, keep it up! Justiyaya 12:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you! Very exciting. Yes I am just having a look at it now, it's a bit overwhelming at first with so much going on. I have two questions that I couldn't find answers to in the manual though. Firstly, what is the global min/max score - is the same thing Wikipedia uses to sort the likely have problems/may have problems setting in recent changes? And also, how does the "user badness score" work? -- NotCharizard 🗨 12:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Honestly not that sure, I think the min/max score has to do with how much an algorithm thinks it's vandalism or a good edit, but I have almost no clue regarding the technical side of Wikipedia. Perhaps asking at the teahouse or the help desk? Justiyaya 13:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah that makes sense, I'm not too worried about the behind the scenes of it (my IT course I'm taking for uni this sem is more than enough programming stuff for me, oof) but just trying to make sure I'm using it right. I think I've got the settings all good now though. -- NotCharizard 🗨 13:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Honestly not that sure, I think the min/max score has to do with how much an algorithm thinks it's vandalism or a good edit, but I have almost no clue regarding the technical side of Wikipedia. Perhaps asking at the teahouse or the help desk? Justiyaya 13:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Been a while edit
Hi Notcharizard been a while since we talked, need any help with anything? Justiyaya 15:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes actually, is there a way to customise your edit summary when using Huggle? So far I have just been going into the browser instead when I need to do something specific. Also, how normal/okay is an amount to be making mistakes with Huggle or reverting in general? Occasionally I misunderstand an edit and revert it, or someone else has reverted it at the same time so I end up unreverting it. This happens very rarely, perhaps 1/150 edits, but because Huggle allows you to do so many it adds up a bit and after someone got a bit frustrated with me yesterday I'm wondering if this is a normal thing for people starting off with anti-vandalism or if I'm at a level where maybe I shouldn't be having rollback rights afterall. -- NotCharizard 🗨 20:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think there is a way to customize, if you go into Options --> Shortcuts --> main-custom-reason in Huggle and change that, it should give you the option to enter your own edit summary. I would say making mistakes every 1/150 edits is alright and is normal for all users using Huggle (becomes rarer with experiences), misunderstandings and mistakes happen to everyone and it's quite a normal part of recent changes patrolling. You definitely should have rollback rights, in fact, I think you might be ready for Wikipedia:Pending changes reviewer in a few weeks or now, it's usually given to rollbackers :D Justiyaya 03:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Good job! edit
Hi Notcharizard, sampling a few of your edits made in the last few days, really good job with huggle and recent changes patrolling, and you've been really consistent with leaving warnings! also check discord :D Justiyaya 10:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you!! That is genuinely super encouraging! -- NotCharizard 🗨 10:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Article creation edit
@Notcharizard: are you still interested in creating new articles? I think you've been having some trouble with determining notability for topics lately, do you have any topics/sources that you want me to check? Do you want me find a notable topic that hasn't been written about yet? Justiyaya 07:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- I definitely still am! At the moment it's my exam time at uni though so I won't be working on any articles until I'm finished (on the 27th) - I am just occasionally doing stuff with Huggle in study breaks because that's pretty easy. -- NotCharizard 🗨 07:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Good luck! I'll check in on the 27th then :D Justiyaya 09:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Notcharizard, everything going alright? noticed you haven't edited in a while Justiyaya 03:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yep, I am okay. After I'd finished with the uni semester I ended up catching Covid (I'd managed to avoid it so far!) and had a bit of a rough time with it. Finally feeling like my brain is working again today so I'm gonna catch up on Wiki stuff I've missed. -- NotCharizard 🗨 21:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Notcharizard: Welcome back, and happy summer holidays! If you need any help with Wikipedia stuff, message me. If you want to make any new articles, message me here or off wiki, I'll try to determine notability or help you find a subject that is already notable. Happy editing :D Justiyaya 08:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yep, I am okay. After I'd finished with the uni semester I ended up catching Covid (I'd managed to avoid it so far!) and had a bit of a rough time with it. Finally feeling like my brain is working again today so I'm gonna catch up on Wiki stuff I've missed. -- NotCharizard 🗨 21:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Notcharizard, everything going alright? noticed you haven't edited in a while Justiyaya 03:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Good luck! I'll check in on the 27th then :D Justiyaya 09:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Good job! (again) edit
@Notcharizard: I've reviewed your rollbacks starting at 12 July and all of them are amazing, I've found no errors. However, I've reverted the IP edit before your rollback with Special:Diff/1093571483 which I'm not very sure of but I don't think that any sentence in the body seem to explicitly support so seems like WP:OR and MOS:WEASEL to me. Do you have any question for me about editing/rollback/Recent changes patrol? Anyways have a great day and happy editing :D Justiyaya 13:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)